I wrote yesterday about concerns of an impending attack on Iran by the U.S. In thinking about it and reading this, I think an attack will actually come via Israel.

A newspaper column in Friday's Washington Times suggests possible plans for an Israeli strike on Iran. The unidentified "military source" told Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough that Israeli officials are discussing the "how and when" of a possible pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear infrastructure.

The Times is not exactly the best source of info, but the story is quite plausible. It would explain the U.S. military build-up which has been extensive, but probably not enough to lead an attack. It would explain the White House rhetoric of "we'll do whatever necessary to protect the troops in Iraq". Finally, it could be the very thing needed by Bush to open up hostilities with Iran should Iranians retaliate in Iraq.

I could see the scenario playing out this way. The Israeli's, based on "intelligence", launch targeted air strikes in Iran to remove nuclear capability. Bush is able to claim "I don't know nuthin' about the birthin' of no babies" in response to the whole thing and actually call for calm in the region. The Iranian's respond with direct fighting against the attack, increased terrorism in Israel (or the U.S.) and with increased covert actions in Iraq. Bush then has the casus belli to expand the war against Iran. Finally, the Senate votes 90-10 in support of defending Israel. And off we go!

Whether it's Israel attacking or the U.S., the Arab and Muslim world will see it as the same thing. The Saudi's will openly condemn it while quietly supporting it. We will then face a high possibility of regional war stretching from Pakistan to Israel.